Purple Lounge back on board

[Casinomeister]

Just a quick announcement that Purple Lounge is back in the Accredited Section. Max and I had a meeting with their CEO in London and she is obviously committed to her players. The issue that transpired here was eventually resolved in the player's favor, and we see eye-to-eye on the Casinomeister's Philosophy.

Good going Purple Lounge. I knew they would eventually come back

For any queries, their casino rep is located here.

[spiderlegz]

Just a quick announcement that Purple Lounge is back in the Accredited Section. Max and I had a meeting with their CEO in London and she is obviously committed to her players. The issue that transpired here was eventually resolved in the player's favor, and we see eye-to-eye on the Casinomeister's Philosophy.

Good going Purple Lounge. I knew they would eventually come back

For any queries, their casino rep is located here.

Cool, read it in the CM awards. Could the thread be updated with possibly a few words from you?

[hausse222]

Hm, they have still the clause "If you withdraw before having reached the minimum wagering requirements, your bonus and winnings will be void."
in their T&C

[Casinomeister]

Hm, they have still the clause "If you withdraw before having reached the minimum wagering requirements, your bonus and winnings will be void."
in their T&C

Then you should rolleyes at nearly every MGS, Playtech and RTG casino out there; it's in nearly every casino's terms and conditions. What is important is how this term is applied. In the situation that Purple Lounge was in with their Greek player, it was applied unfairly. The casino eventually agreed, paid the player, and that was it.

[hausse222]

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...tml#post370447

Changed your opinion

This term is still a trapping one. It´s no problem to implement a warning that a withdrawel is not possible due to not fullfilling the requirements.
A casino that uses this term is only hoping for a mistake of the player to get their losses back.

[Casinomeister]

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...tml#post370447

Changed your opinion

This term is still a trapping one. It´s no problem to implement a warning that a withdrawel is not possible due to not fullfilling the requirements.
A casino that uses this term is only hoping for a mistake of the player to get their losses back.

No I haven't changed my opinion, it's still predatory in nature. I'll see if this can't be changed.

[vinylweatherman]

No I haven't changed my opinion, it's still predatory in nature. I'll see if this can't be changed.

It shouldn't even be necessary, since the casino software can either be set to allow withdrawal with bonus sacrifice, or to block withdrawals altogether whilst there is any bonus balance left.

This term may only be needed on other parts of the site, where the software cannot automatically block the withdrawal.

A reasonable modification would be to return withdrawals back to the account with a note that xxxx more needs to be wagered. If a player persists in attempting to "get one over" by repeatedly trying to withdraw before meeting WR, they should either be threatened with an "administration fee", or told they will be kicked out of the casino or bonus banned.

The previous view shown by PL was that they might as well close accounts rather than bonus ban, because they felt there would be no point in a player continuing to play without the bonuses. This is NOT a good message to send out, as it implies bonuses are so essential, that no right minded player would ever consider playing without one.

[Nifty29]

I signed up yesterday thru CM and made a nice profit on SUB.

Support is friendly but totally clueless I'm afraid. I emailed them to get a wagering figure and after 4 emails back and forth and being given figures ranging from $92 (after an hour playing slots ) and "your wagering requirements are 50x25 " which isn't what I asked for in the first place. In the end I just added up playcheck which is a PITA. If they used the clearplay system it wouldn't be an issue.

Let's hope the cashout process is less exasperating.

[jetset]

PL seems to be doing OK business-wise - from the latest Mediacorp report:

Purple Lounge revenues showed an increase of 15.1 percent to GBP 3.8 million (Q1/2010: GBP 3.3 million)

[Casinomeister]

Hm, they have still the clause "If you withdraw before having reached the minimum wagering requirements, your bonus and winnings will be void."
in their T&C

It turns out that they had updated the bonus term that was applied to that player, but didn't update the rest. The terms should be updated now to the following:

Withdrawal requests made before the wagering requirements have been met will be rejected until such a time as the wagering requirements have been satisfied. In the event that any withdrawal request is accepted before the wager requirement has been completed, the players bonus and any and all winnings to that date, will be forfeited. Any exceptions to this rule are made at the sole discretion of Purple Lounge.